Man's 'right' to have sex is more important than vulnerable women's right to safety.

[jellyfrizz]

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/03/man-who-does-not-understand-consent-has-right-to-pursue-sex-court-rules

The judgment said that the “decision to engage in sexual relations ... is a primal expression of our humanity and existence as sexual beings. It is an essential part of our basic DNA as reproductive human beings.”

In its submission to the court, the local authority said that there was concern that JB’s behaviour, if unrestrained, “might result in his exposure to the criminal justice system and risk to potentially vulnerable females”. They said that his advances to women in the past have lacked appropriate social inhibition.

FFS!

Nobody gets banned from driving in the UK for drink driving without previously drink driving though.

A more apt analogy is perhaps "Should we allow someone to have driving licence if we know that they do not and cannot understand what a stop sign means? They will be fine as long as long as they happen to drive down roads that do not contain one, but it's quite likely they would encounter fairly quickly and then people will get hurt."

I suppose the only parallel which does occur is people with serious mental health issues being sectioned.

Yes, because of their potential to harm others. Being suicidal isn't enough to get you sectioned, you have to be a clear danger to others.

It’s a tough one. If a professional psychologist identifies someone as being dangerous and a potential axe murderer should we wait for them to do it before acting or should we just lock them up just to be safe even if they’ve so far done nothing?

We're not talking about locking this guy up. We're talking about the equivalent of not letting a potential axe murderer have an axe.

After the Dunblane school shooting, around 10,000 law-abiding shooters had their pistols confiscated by the Govt and section 5 of the Firearms Act was amended to ban private ownership of most pistols. Few people outside the shooting community consider that ban disproportionate, yet many on this thread think that banning one man, who already has form for sexual harassment and does not understand the need for consent and this lack of understanding is supported by observational evidence, from having unsupervised access to women is disproportionate to protect an unspecified and potentially unlimited number of women.

No one seems to want to engage with the fact that he already has form for boundary violations. No one seems to want to engage with the reality that, to have sex (which the ruling was explicitly about), a man, who is known not to understand the need for a woman to consent, will have to be left alone and unsupervised with a woman.

He can have supervised dates, supervised nights out, supervised everything, but not supervised sex. And sex is when he is the most danger to women. Sex is when he most needs to understand the need for the woman's consent. And he doesn't. And the only way to give him that access is to knowing put women at elevated risk of rape.

When I posted my FTFY, I crossed out PTSD once and left it uncrossed out the second time.

That constant hyper vigilance and scanning for threats is PTSD keeping you in red alert & fearful minimising your chance of getting caughf unawares by some bastard man wanting to get his dick wet at your expense.

All I can say, is that your opinion on the case of P is ruled by your fear of men in general.

When Kittens said you were being dismissive? Yeah, that's what she meant. Women aren't allowed opinions about rape unless those opinions benefit men, and if the woman has been raped then her experiences will be used to discredit her opinion.

P has never sexually assaulted anyone.

Nowhere does it say that. Psychologist said in her report: "Based on descriptions of his previous and ongoing behaviours, this is most likely to take the form of sexual harassment through the form of repeated, unwanted sexually explicit messages to females whose numbers he has obtained or whom he contacts through social media or dating sites. [JB] has also been observed to have limited social boundaries around women, particularly those who are vulnerable but also women in pubs or clubs whom he has approached whilst dancing. Additionally he acknowledges not being able to judge women's reactions to him and that he is unwilling to directly ask for clarification of these issues. In these and similar situations the risk is of [JB] sexually touching these women without consent. In terms of vulnerable women who do not have the capacity to consent to sexual relations, there is a risk of [JB] not recognising or respecting this fact, resulting in the potential for rape to occur."

I've bolded the bits that detail already-observed behaviours.

• He's sexted women who didn't want to be sexted.
• He doesn't have social boundaries around women in person.
• He knows that he can't tell whether a woman is is interested in him and despite this self-awareness doesn't want to ask her to clarify.

And yet you think he's not a rapist-in-waiting? You think that, despite all those massive red flags, he'll somehow ask for consent in bed? Those red flags are what's ruling my opinion on this, not my sexual assault history, not my PTSD, and not my reasoned fear of men as a class.

He could be a rapist in waiting. Perhaps this is a clear cut case most people can agree on. But I make no apologies for being uncomfortable with thought policing as just because this one seems to stack up what about others and where is the line drawn.

A lot of people are skeptical about social services as they often get things massively wrong. They might leave a kid in a challenging environment who gets murdered and there’s a huge outcry. Other times people have had children removed from there care when they’ve been subsequently found to be totally innocent.

The public’s support for a better safe than sorry approach is reliant on how much faith they have on those making the decisions usually behind closed doors and away from the courts. My only interest here is in civil liberties. It’s like surveillance when people say you shouldn’t worry unless you have nothing to hide. Most agree until something happens them

I don’t think one sole psychologist should get to just decide though. Who gave them that authority. Hence why it should be up to the courts

"he acknowledges not being able to judge women's reactions to him and that he is unwilling to directly ask for clarification of these issues"

Why doesn't he want to ask? I also have difficulty judging people's reactions and so I ask. I am always alert with partners for signs of them dissociating or "checking out" and if I am not sure then I ask. Why doesn't he ask too? Could it be that he doesn't want to be told "no" because then he "might not get to fuck her"? That unwillingness to ask despite self-awareness is a huge red flag for entitled rapey behaviour.

He's been on a care plan to protect women for five years. LA won't have done that without good reason.

Get a second psychologist's opinion then. Checks and balances are a good thing.

My only interest here is in civil liberties.

Women's civil liberties are, in practice, massively impaired by rape and the fear of rape. I refer you back to "I went to secondary school with a girl who was severely visually-impaired. She will never be allowed to ride a bicycle except as a tandem stoker with a sighted pilot and will never be issued a driving licence." Are her civil liberties unfairly impaired by these restrictions placed upon her transport options, or are they reasonable given the risks she would pose to others? Ordinarily, we regard cycling as a right, but she will never be allowed to. Why is sex different?

Different PP: Your prediction that P will deny women agency is crystal ball thinking. He may or he may not just like any other person does to another when they commit a criminal act.

Rape always denies the victim's agency, by definition. The rapist denies the victim's agency as whether to receive a penis into his/her body. Sexual assault likewise denies the victim's agency. The only "crystal ball" is my prediction that he will sexually offend, and there's plenty of red flags for that in his past and ongoing behaviour.

The argument that men's civil liberties must come first in this kind of situation is often a de facto argument that women's civil liberties must be disregarded so that the men can remain as free as possible. Which is why, since many feminists have heard it before, it will tend to be greeted with a fair amount of side eye.

The argument that men's civil liberties must come first in this kind of situation is often a de facto argument that women's civil liberties must be disregarded so that the men can remain as free as possible.

And I'm not even sure it can be correctly applied to this case:

• Sexual Offences Act 2003 section one criminalises rape.
• Human Rights Act does not list anywhere a "right to sex" (and the judge appears to be trying to legislate this right from the bench in her ruling). Therefore exposing women to increased, foreseeable, and preventable risk of rape to grant a man a non-existant right is a violation of women's* civil rights.

There appear to be a lot of different groups attempting to establish a legal right to sex at the moment and I guarantee that is not going to work out well for women.

If that continuation is not rape, it's not wrong.
If an act is not wrong, there's no reason to stop the act.

I don’t think 1/3 of men would agree with that logic there. Some would, obviously (is it 6% of men who are meant to be rapists?). But not 1/3. I have never had any trouble making men stop. I have been raped, but that was a literal stranger jumping out of bushes.

My concern with banning convicted rapists from having contact with women is that that would mean either whole-life sentences, and given how low conviction rates and sentences are now that is simply never going to happen. Or it means restricting the rights of women so that poor convicted rapists can go about their business without inadvertently infringing their parole conditions. So segregated workplaces, segregated shops. If you look at KSA, Iran and other repressive countries, the restrictions on women are all in the name of “safeguarding” them from nasty men. UK society already believes that women are asking to be raped if they walk home from work alone after 6pm, you are dreaming if you think “keeping rapists away from women” would result in any restrictions being placed on the men.

sashkin Read the report I linked to. 1/3 of guys think that it's not rape to carry on if the woman changes her mind, even though it is rape by law.

you are dreaming if you think “keeping rapists away from women” would result in any restrictions being placed on the men.

Sadly, you are probably right. Ideally, the rapists would be restricted, just as we already use court orders to keep paedophiles away from schools.

There appear to be a lot of different groups attempting to establish a legal right to sex at the moment

Yup.

• Trans privilege activists trying to undermine the definition of "lesbian" and coerce female homosexuals into accepting dick.
• TPAs trying to decriminalise rape and sexual assault by deception when the deception is about birth sex and sexual anatomy, even though this puts women at risk of pregnancy, STIs, and allergic reactions to transmen's latex prosthetic phalluses.
• Men's privilege activists, and "incels" specifically, trying to legalise brothels and have state-issued brothel vouchers.
• MPAs want to legalise the rape of women who've had more than nine sexual partners. Disabled people men* being used as a foot in the door to get prostitution legalised.
• Rulings like this one that use "right to have sex" and similar worrying language.

You're right that none of this bodes well for women.

I think this is different from ‘giving’ someone a right to sex. No one has or should have an automatic right to sex but I’m going to give to as feel uncomfortable being seemingly the only person defending a man who probably is dangerous and not someone I would want to die on a hill for.

Was more the general principles it threw up and how it might be applied elsewhere rather than just to a specific individual

Re the link to an incel forum, if anyone should wear placards advertising their affiliations and history it's them. Maybe the card can say "I have a seething hatred of women that makes me dangerous to be around, please proceed with extreme caution".

Actually to be fair the forum itself seems to be taking the piss out of incels from an economics doesn't work that way perspective,

Was more the general principles it threw up and how it might be applied elsewhere rather than just to a specific individual.

General principles:
What you said about how cases like this shouldn't be down to a single psychologist (or any other person) to decide but that courts should be involved, that's a legit point. Checks and balances are a good thing. I also think that this thread's posters would agree that restricting someone's actions should not be taken lightly.

The disagreement about this specific case is whether the judge made a mistake, based on P's likely risk to others.

As an aside, re my own advocacy of restricting rapists' freedoms around women after release: a (male) relative I was talking to last weekend expressed the opinion that "rapists should have it [the penis] cut off to stop them from doing it [raping] again". Compared to that, my proposal is very reasonable and civilised.

I regard the suggestion that we as a society need to be concerned about whether or not we're unfairly restricting the freedom of rapists as a rather obvious red flag. I don't think some men realize how that reads to a woman, but it's one of those things that if I see a man say it or anything like it even once it gets filed away in the "be wary of this one" tab and not forgotten.

Note that the above is not in any way an attempt to communicate with the men in question. It's a way of saying to the other women thinking the same "it's not just you and it's perfectly reasonable to feel this way and to act on that feeling by treating the men who provoke it with an extra layer of caution".

One day I will put my entire reply into one post.

I’m going to give to as feel uncomfortable being seemingly the only person defending a man who probably is dangerous and not someone I would want to die on a hill for.

Right, one of the fun things about defending human rights and civil liberties etc etc is that you end up defending despicable people. Defending the right of all people to have a nationality means defending the rights of Shamima Begum, because she is currently stateless and that violates her human rights. It means defending the right of rapists not to be penectomised as suggested by my male relly, even though my gut feeling is "YEAH cut it off, disarm the bastards", because penectomy would constitute "cruel and unusual punishment". So I sympathise, because I find myself defending despicable people too.

On the Incel topic there is a podcast originally titled Incel which I have found quite interesting. It takes a very deliberate compassionate approach and gives the guys a chance to explain their feelings. Whilst some of it has been incredibly disturbing listening some of it has been illuminating.

Having skim-read that judgement, it sounds like the judge is saying that she isn't empowered to make a judgement on the basis of protecting women assault. Based on the arguments and laws brought before her, she is only empowered to make a judgement about the best interests of the man in question and she thinks it's not in his best interests to prevent him harassing women. The paragraph below is key - it seems like there will be further hearings later this month, the issue of protecting others from this person will be discussed then and the care order may be amended to protect women at that point. IANAL but I think I've understood it right.

In this context the protection of others falls squarely within the Mental Health Act 1983 as opposed to the MCA 2005. I did not hear detailed submissions on this aspect of matters which will doubtless occupy the court during the second stage of this split hearing in October this year. If these matters are agreed, they can doubtless be incorporated into any case management order which flows from this judgment.

1/3 of guys think that it's not rape to carry on if the woman changes her mind, even though it is rape by law.

It’s only rape by law if the woman also communicates that she has changed her mind. If she says and does nothing to indicate her mind has changed, ie asks him to stop, then it’s not rape. In other words, the man has to be reasonably made aware that her mind has changed.
The survey question in the report you linked was missing this crucial element of asking him to stop and thus the confusion.

you are dreaming if you think “keeping rapists away from women” would result in any restrictions being placed on the men.

@Sashkin. This is very true. It’s the #1 purported reason why ISIS required a male relative escort a woman anywhere and everywhere at all times. To protect her honor (chastity).